In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.

org/483

History, Methodology, Philosophy

3-4 | 2013 :
Economics and literature
Revue des livres
Essais critiques

CHRIS GODDEN
p. 645-664

Rfrence(s) :
Francesco Boldizzoni, The Poverty of Clio. Resurrecting Economic History. Princeton University Press, 2011, 216
pages, ISBN 978-0-691-14400-9
J.W. Drukker, The Revolution That Bit Its Own Tail. How Economic History Changed Our Ideas on Economic
Growth. Aksant Academic Publishers, 2006, 308 pages, ISBN 90-5260-198-4
Robert William Fogel, Enid M. Fogel, Mark Guglielmo, and Nathan Grotte, Political Arithmetic. Simon Kuznets
and the Empirical Tradition in Economics. University of Chicago Press, 2013, 148 pages, ISBN
978-0-226-25661-0
John Lyons, Louis P. Cain, and Samuel H. Williamson (eds.) Reflections on the Cliometrics Revolution:
Conversations with Economic Historians. Routledge, 2008, 491 pages, ISBN 0-415-70091-4
Robert Whaples and Randall E. Parker (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Modern Economic History, Routledge,
2013, 352 pages, ISBN 978-0-415-67704-2

Texte intgral
1 This review essay reflects upon five recent studies dealing with the sociology,
methodology, practice, and future direction of economic history. I will summarise the
key features and findings of these texts, set them in their wider historiographical
context, and consider what they say about the broad subject matter of economic history.

1 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

It will be shown how these books illuminate different facets of the disciplineits
methodological and institutional development from the mid-twentieth century; the
influences and activities of key practitioners; current approaches, findings, and
agendas; and debates centred around complex relationships between the social sciences
and humanities. Particular attention is devoted in the latter half of the review to a
recent study by Francesco Boldizzoni suggesting how modern economic history can
escape the methods of economic science without lapsing into narrative history. I end by
briefly considering views regarding anticipated research trajectories, as well as drawing
attention to the core principles of economic history in order to highlight its importance
within the humanities.
2 At the heart of the five texts under discussion is the impact of the cliometrics
revolution (otherwise known as the new economic history or econometric history) on
the study of economic history in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. The
roots of this revolution can be traced to the early 1920s, beginning with investigations
by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) into the size, composition, and
distribution of US national income. By the end of the Second World War, the key
developments and refinements of cliometric techniques had emerged, fuelled by the
growing attention in the mechanisms of economic growth, new approaches to the study
of the aggregate economy, better availability of economic data, and the increasing
mathematic formalisation of economic theory. It is generally recognised that it was at a
special gathering held in Massachusetts in the autumn of 1957 that the discipline
achieved wide academic recognition. The speedy acceptance of the new economic
history owed much to the methods and techniques of the cliometricians (mathematical
economics, etc), and the clear absence of language barriers between them and
economists. Institutional structures and scholarly activities quickly reinforced the
distinct character of the new disciple, famously through conferences and seminars at
Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. From these emerged the style, tone, and
(primarily American) interests that came to define cliometrics for the next quarter of a
century. By far the most famous eruption of hostility towards the new quantitative-
analytical method came with the publication of Fogel and Engermans dramatic
reinterpretation of American slavery in Time on the Cross (Fogel and Engerman, 1974).1
Yet even with these heated (and often well-publicised) disputes, the cliometric approach
retained sufficient momentum to ensure its survival and wide diffusion. Cliometrics
continues to dominate publications in the Journal of Economic History2 as well as a
significant proportion of articles in the Economic History Review (although the
cliometrics revolution never achieved the same degree of dominance amongst European
economic historians compared with their American counterparts). The new economic
history added to the understanding of modern economies, and its successes were
formally recognised in 1993 with the awarding of the Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economics to Robert Fogel and Douglass C. North.3
3 Lyons, Cain, and Williamsons Reflections on the Cliometrics Revolution provides a
useful introduction to the history and sociology of this post-war story, and their book
follows in the wake of various interview collections published over the past twenty
years.4 The main chapters of the book consist of twenty-five interviews, conducted with
a body of influential cliometricians over a roughly thirteen year periodthe earliest with
Lance E. Davies (by fax and telephone) in late 1989/early 1990, the last with Charles
Feinstein in 2002. In addition to these interviews, short essays, in the form of further
reflections, are provided by, amongst others, Douglass C. North, Eric Jones, Robert
Fogel, Stanley Engerman, and Peter Temin.
4 The first six chapters serve to set these interviews in context, and provide a succinct
overview of the development of cliometrics as an intellectual movement/revolution,

2 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

together with a lucid commentary on the impact, debates and controversies it

generated. While celebrating the achievements of the early cliometricians in signalling a
methodological revolution and challenging existing historical interpretations, it is hard
to ignore their role in the creation of an academic environment antipathetic to this
particular model of economic history. Upon securing the necessary critical mass within
mainstream research, the members of the cliometric community quickly engaged in a
prozelytizing mission that saw them reactingsome would say overreactingto the
dominantly descriptive and institutional approach of earlier scholarship (Lyons, Cain,
& Williamson: 17). The editors attribute some of this alienation to the attitudes and
conduct of this group of innovators who, in seeking to reinterpret established historical
viewpoints, became bedazzled by their own technical abilities and subjected their
critics to a barrage of unfamiliar formulae, bewildering jargon, and esoteric
mathematics (Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 21).
5 Published interviews are, more often than not, a matter of taste, and it is clearly
difficult to do adequate justice to a collection that contains so many engaging and
important pieces with this intellectual community of cliometricians. The wide-ranging
nature of the discussions covers observations and humorous asides on a variety of
historiographical and methodological debates. To provide a very brief flavour, we may
note: Parkers view on the importance of economic history for economists (this is an
exercise in imagination and thought that economists need, both in framing hypotheses
and in making policy recommendations, Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 190); Norths
comments on his move into institutional economic history (Im sometimes looked on
as a traitor to my cause, you know, because Im attacking cliometrics in many ways,
Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 203); Fogels recollections of the response to his paper at
the first Clio meeting at Purdue (they picked away in detail at all of my different
estimates, Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 333); Feinsteins remark on the vital role that
cliometrics played within the study of economic history in America (their work had
lacked quantification analysis entirely, Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 293); and even
Hartwells own reflection of his relationship to the new economic history (I do not
think of myself as a cliometrician at all!, Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 271).
6 A few points are also worth noting about perspectives and approaches. First, given the
research focus of the new economic history, a number of interviewees reflect upon the
determinants of long-term growth and issues relating to geography, resources,
technological change, income inequality, and politics. Second, as is only to be expected,
the participants do not speak with a unified voice. There is no escaping the variable
quality of the material presented, a fact primarily attributable to the disparate
circumstances under which many of these interviews were conducted.5 Elements of the
work are occasionally exasperating, and the reader can be left feeling frustrated
(cheated!) as a line of argument is hastily touched upon and never fully developed. A
particularly annoying feature of the work is that the publishers have included only an
index of names, thereby making it a cumbrous and time consuming task to properly
cross reference material and so trace out patterns of scholarship and institutional
networks. Irrespective of this, the intellectual force of much of this material remains
palpable, and the keen reader will benefit enormously from the opportunity to enter the
company of these elders of the tribe.
7 One entire section of this book is devoted to interviews with some of the students of
Simon KuznetsRichard Easterlin and Robert Gallman at the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman at the John
Hopkins University in Baltimore. It is superfluous to say that Kuznets was one of the
founding figuresand legendsof quantitative economic history. There is no interview
with Kuznets in this book (the earliest interview in this volume dates from

3 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

approximately four years after his death), yet it is impossible to escape the fact that
Kuznetss shadow falls with impressive grandeur across this collection. Various
contributors comment throughout on the significance of Kuznetss contributions to the
study of historical national accounts and patterns of economic change. In light of this, it
is pleasing to find a new, short studyPolitical Arithmetic. Simon Kuznets and the
Empirical Tradition in Economicsaddressing Kuznetss research and legacy, and
co-written by his spiritual and intellectual son, the late Robert Fogel.
8 Faults the book has, certainly: chief of these being that it is really two slim books
sandwiched into one short volume. The first three chapters concentrate on the rise of
Americas economic profession before the First World War, the early history of the
NBER, and the recognition of the importance of quantitative data for both military and
post-war purposes. These chapters complement the brief discussion in Lyons, Cain and
Williamson on the early history of the NBER, while emphasising the organisations focus
on the presentation of economic data, the distribution of national income,
unemployment and business cycles, and economic policy. These chapters are enjoyable
and, although running to less than forty pages, can profitably be read in conjunction
with Fabricants (equally) short history of the NBER (Fabricant, 1984) and, say, the
early chapters of Staplefords study of American consumer price statistics (Stapleford,
2009). It is only in chapter four that the figure of Kuznets properly emerges, and it is
from here, through the remaining four chapters, that the reader is offered an overview
of both his scientific method and contributions to the field of economic research. This
latter point includes, of course, national income accounting and the investigation of the
long-term growth patterns of industrial nations, the art of measurement and analysis of
quantitative data, and interrelations between demographic processes and modern
economic growth. Interested readers will find this overview of Kuznetss lasting
contributions far too short, and are best directed to consult key articles by Lundberg
(1971) and Kapuria-Foreman and Perlman (1995).
9 The importance of historical investigation and knowledge within Kuznets conception
of economics serves to illustrate the sharp differences between the form practised by
him and that which came to dominate after the Second World War. Critical of the
sterility of abstract, deductive theories of economic behaviour, Kuznetss research
agenda set him apart from the main body of theoretical modellers. From the mid-1950s
through to the late 1960s, he produced a series of monographs that established the
building blocks for his complex, empirically based theory of modern economic growth.
His magnum opusModern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread (Kuznets,
1966) explored the economic epochs of human history and those innovations that
both transformed societies and served as the basis for rapid economic development. For
him, the primary position of history as the principle source of generalisations about
economic behaviour required no justification. Distinguishing itself from the atemporal
character of modern deductive economics, Kuznetss research demonstrated sensitivity
to the importance of historical experiences. This was more than some simplistic,
extended commentary on economic statistics, and Kuznets was led to emphasise the
historical specific character of economic phenomenon, with work directed towards
understanding and evaluating real world structural developments and institutional
processes operating through time.6 Although not involving himself directly in the great
(and often heavily politicised) policy debates of his day, the character of Kuznetss work
embodied rigorous, disciplined, policy-oriented empirical research. At the heart of this
was the nature of economics as an empirical science directed towards evaluating
economic performance and thereby serving as a guide for policy.
10 Today, economic history is seen as a luxury rather than an essential feature of
economics. Yet historical knowledge and mathematical modelling are, as the authors of

4 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

this short study make clear, complementary ways of examining economic activity. This
book, even allowing for its rather odd structure, serves as a timely reminder of the role
of historical analysis as an essential foundation stone in the professional training of
economists.
11 Moving now from the specific to the general, The Revolution that Bit its Own Tail:
How Economic History Changed our Ideas on Economic Growth (Drukker, 2006;
translated from the Dutch by the Caribbean Development Institute) serves as a useful,
one-stop introduction to the development of modern economic history.7 Anyone
without prior interest in the subject will, with a little effort, derive much from this
instructive volume. Lengthy chapters explore, amongst other things, the problems faced
by the inductive-oriented Historical School in isolating itself from the deductive nature
of mainstream economic theory, the relationship of the Annales school to the new
economic history, and (inevitably) the impact of the cliometric colonization in the
United States. There are also useful short sections covering Conrad and Meyers
groundbreaking study of the economics of slavery in the Antebellum South (Conrad &
Meyer, 1958), the role of historical national accounts in destroying the myth of the
Industrial Revolution, and the rise of anthropometric history.
12 The issue at the heart of Drukkers book is to show how economic historians, trained
in the tools of cliometric analysis, came to recognise the limitations of neo-classical
economic analysis, and so move to bring different elements of social science theory into
the study of economic history. While the cliometric method offered satisfactory
explanations of historical economic development in the Western world, it found itself
wholly unable to explain why similar developments did not emerge elsewhere or the
problems experienced by later countries undergoing economic development. It was the
eventual recognition of the limitations of the new economic history that provoked a
number of cliometriciansincluding Douglas North, Paul David, and Joel Mokyrto
emphasise the historical importance of the institutional background and cultural
heritage.8 Yet these social and cultural factors had been prominent within traditional
economic history, before being systematically ignored following the methodological
revolution associated with the new economic history. This shift back towards more
traditional approaches leads Drukker to identify the revolution that heralded cliometric
economic history as one that ultimately bit its own tail.
13 The issue that emerges from a reflection of Drukkers book is the contribution that
historical analysis (as represented in the developments outlined by him) can make to
the study of modern economics and economic change. Set within the context of the
social sciences, the requirement must be to strike a balance between formal theory
(taken from across the social sciences rather than just economics), quantitative
methods, and historical techniques. While the reader will find some repetition of
material offered by Lyons, Cain, and Williamson, the broad focus of the text makes
Drukkers book significantly more useful in documenting the origins of traditional
economic history and the advance of the cliometrics revolution. The latter part of the
book can profitably be read in conjunction with Douglass C. Norths interview and
further reflections commentary included in that collection.9
14 Turning from discussions of methodologies, some attention should be given to
current subject themes and findings. A succinct introduction to these may be found in
Robert Whaples and Randall E. Parker edited collection, The Routledge Handbook of
Modern Economic History. This text, a worthy supplement to the editors earlier volume
dealing with major macroeconomic events over the past two centuries (Parker and
Whaples, 2013), is clearly the product of experts thoroughly versed in the recent
developments in their respective subjects. Having marshalled the expertise of a team of
scholars, the results of their labours are presented across twenty-seven thematic and

5 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

topical chapters with much that will interest engaged students and academics alike. Part
I addresses the methods of modern economic history, and contains the (by now)
obligatory essay on economic history and cliometrics, followed by commentaries on the
new institutional economics, economic growth and living standards, and
anthropometric history. Parts II, III and IV range widely across themes, with
illuminating studies addressing economic growth and stagnation, individual economic
sectors (including agriculture, transportation, healthcare, entertainment and sport),
and the work force and human outcomes (including labor markets, labor unions,
education, slavery, and urbanization). Even allowing for the inevitable degree of brevity,
each contribution has its own strengths, and the overall work has enormous value in
spotlighting topics and key readings. Many chapters deserve a place on undergraduate
reading lists, and would be ideal teaching aids demonstrating how to summarise and
synthesise issues and debates associated with a given topic. It is interesting to note in
the preface that the editors had sought additional chapters (on ageing, energy markets,
natural resources, property rights, housing markets, and demographic change) but had
been unable to convince scholars in these areas to contribute. This absence in no way
harms the quality of the overall work, although it does, as the editors acknowledge,
reflect current professional incentives to publish only in refereed journals. One issue
that the book does raise is its relatively static geographic framework. It is a shame that
an overly heavy focus on the North America context led many contributors to downplay
the great value of the comparative approach. This is particularly sad given shifts in the
recent historiography that have emphasised transnational and comparative global
processes.10 Nonetheless, set against the context of Lyons, Cain, and Williamsons
collected interviews, and Drukkers commentary on shifting methodologies, this volume
serves as a useful overview of topics, current trends, and advances in economic history
studies.
15 The four books discussed thus far have concentrated on the evolution of quantitative
economic history, the successes and limitations of the cliometrics revolution, and
current themes in modern economic history. An informed reader of these four texts is
unable to escape their overall focus of economic history as a sub-field of economics and,
by extension, the place of economic history within the social sciences. What about the
situation with regard to the humanities? As a very brief prelude to our discussion of
Boldizzonis study of this issue, let us note five books, published over the past decade or
so, that include contributions by many of the worlds leading historians and theorists of
history, and which, in aggregate, serve to illuminate the current status of economic
history within the humanities. In the first of these, What is History Now?, the reader
will search in vain for any discussion of economic history beyond a short, disdainful
remark by the distinguished historian, Richard J. Evans, where he comments that
economic and econometric historians are still plying their recondite trade in the decent
obscurity of learned journal, conference volumes and subsidized monographs (Evans,
2002 p. 9). The editors of Manifestos in History (Morgan, Jenkins and Munslow, 2007)
offer a sophisticated rendering of the character of history in both its present and
expected future forms, yet fail to make reference to the case of economic history. In the
case of A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography (Tucker, 2011),
the reader will encounter nothing more substantive than a half page discussion of
historical political economy. Something a little more instructive appears to be offered in
Martlands The Future of the Past: Big Questions in History, but closer inspection
reveals this to be a fairly bland discussion of long-run economic cycles (Trebilcock,
2002). It is only in Harlaftis, Karapidakis, Sbonias and Vaiopouloss The New Ways of
History: Developments in Historiography, that we find explicit reference to the status,
character, and expected development of economic history as a sub-discipline of history

6 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

(Mathias, 2010).
16 How are we to explain this lowly position of economic history within the humanities?
A detailed examination of this sorry state of affairs is beyond the scope of this essay, and
brief discussion of a couple of possibilities will have to suffice. The first, and most
obvious, of these concerns historians highly critical view of the familiarity between
economic theory and the new economic history, and the emergence of a methodology
that, it is argued, strips humanity from the historical narrative. A second possible
explanation concerns a perception within the humanities that economic history deals
only with the dirty world of business, trade, and commerce, and so fails to blend with
on-going research agendas based around topics such as identity, consciousness, public
memory, and so on.
17 There is no denying that there has been a separation between economic historians
with their roots in economics and those with roots in general historical research. Given
this serious state of affairs, the rejuvenation of economic history within the humanities
will be dependent on its ability to engage the attentions of a new generation of
innovative scholars. While some discussion of these issues is provided in Drukkers
book, the interested reader is better directed to consult Patrick OBriens Afterword to
the study by Lyons, Cain, and Williamson. Entitled The shock achievements and
disappointments of the new, OBriens chapter offers an engaging summary of the
themes present in Lyons, Cain, and Williamsons book, a retrospective analysis of the
disciplineaddressing, amongst other things, problems, critical debates, and
institutional uncertaintiesbefore rounding off with a discussion of potential future
developments. Sparkling with wit and erudition, the chapter provides ideas that are
certainly worthy of reflection. Given its lengthless than seven pagesit deserves to be
brought to the attention of anyone interested in understand the problems and
possibilities of economic history as an academic discipline.
18 Taking all of the above points into consideration, the time would appear to be ripe for
an injection of fresh ideas. It was therefore with some interest that that this reviewer
approached the final book under discussion in this essayFrancesco Boldizzonis The
Poverty of Clio. Whereas Lyons, Cain and Williamson assessed the development of
cliometrics from within the intellectual community of cliometricians, Boldizzoni
considers the existential crisis of economic history brought about by the rise of
econometric analysis and the institutional development of cliometrics within American
Universities.
19 A reader acquainted with the methodological debates surrounding economic history
will find little in the early chapters of this book that constitutes a tale of the unexpected.
An outline of the time-old critique of the fundamentalist cliometric model is presented
i.e. while some familiarity with formal economic models assists in disentangling the
complexities of economic phenomenon, the degree of abstraction applied by
cliomatricians has resulted in the construction of historical narratives that correspond
to the conceptual framework of conventional neo-classical economics. The tendency to
view history purely through the prism of abstract models, so the argument goes, raises
further important methodological issues, ranging from the ease by which investigators
can select independent variables in order to condition the results of regression analysis,
to the dangers inherent in counterfactual analysis.11
20 We must agree that an accessible outline of the cliometric method is essential for any
lay reader wishing to engage with issues associated with the modern discipline of
economic history. Boldizzonis aim here is clearly to engage with relevant
methodological questions associated with burgeoning of cliometric analysis. Yet the end
result is only to present the reader with the usual critical interpretation of the
application of theoretical economics and quantitative methods in the service of

7 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

historical investigation. It is hardly a revelation to say that, since the methodology of

economic history is firmly rooted in the methods of economic science, the research
programmes of many economic historians have been influenced by the changing
structure of economics.12 Boldizzoni therefore offers a fairly generic critique that leads
back to the view that economic history has become little more than a sub-field of
applied economics.
21 Given the focus of this book in seeking to challenge the (perceived) dominance of
cliometrics, Boldizzoni attempts to speak to an alternative methodology through which
economic history will no longer be overly encumbered by the restrictive conditions of
neo-classical theory. Boldizzonis study is therefore centred around drawing economic
history away from formalised economics and quantitative methods of analysis. It is
useful to briefly compare this point with ideas outlined in the above mentioned study of
Kuznets. In that book, the discussion focused on the importance of the empirical
tradition and the need to draw historical knowledge back into mainstream economics. It
is interesting to note how, in these two works (which, it has to be said, offer significantly
varying degrees of detail and presentation), we find differing attitudes, expressed by
practitioners in different academic disciplines, concerning the intertwined relationships
between economics, history, and economic history.
22 In seeking to challenge the dominance of quantitative economic history, Boldizzonis
proposes an alternative methodological framework structured around a metatheory that
draws upon several branches of inquiry, both theoretical and historical, with the duel
aims of enriching economic history andmore boldlyredefining the very principles of
mainstream economic discourse. In addressing this, the author has drawn on ideas
developed and applied in European historical studies since the mid-twentieth century.
The points underpinning Boldizzonis manifesto (Boldizzoni: 150-151) may be
summarised as follows:

1. The need for economic historians to investigate a wide range of primary

sources.
2. Moving economic historians from the oversimplifications of cliometrics
through improved training in social, cultural, political, and institutional history.
3. The importance of economic historians being pro-active in initiating
constructive dialogues with, for example, sociologist and anthropologists
(thereby escaping the special relationship between economics and economic
history).
4. A more judicious and critically aware application of quantitative methods.
5. The need for economic historians in establishing a new relationship with
theory.

23 What is one to make of these five principles? The range of material deployed to
support this framework is certainly interesting, and the reader is ably led through issues
relating to, amongst other things, the problems associated with quantification and
econometric analysis, the importance of the longue dure, economic sociology and
economic anthropology, as well as numerous examples and historical case studies.
24 Turning to more substantive issues, the informed reader cannot help but offer a few
comments. For example, under point (1), established criticisms of cliometrics claim that
its practitioners have ignored the need to undertake archival research, have missed
opportunities to generate evidence from primary sources, and generally have been
over-reliant on conveniently published data sets. Yes, there is some truth is such
criticisms; but we cannot ignore the numerous cliometricians who have assiduously
unearthed and offered scholarly evaluations of primary source material. In fairness to
the author, the issue presented under point (1) is connected with the act of undertaking

8 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

archival research, as well as the need to expand the range of primary sources consulted
by economic historians in order to avoid repeatedly churning through existing series.
This idea connects with point (4), and reflects the application of sophisticated
quantitative methods associated with the expansion of the quantitative record
undertaken by cliometricians from the 1950s onwards.
25 The foundations for parts (2) and (5) of Boldizzonis manifesto can be traced to the
work of the Polish economic historian, Witold Kula, particularly the microeconomic
perspectives of production, consumption, and exchange developed in his book, An
Economic Theory of the Feudal System (Kula, 1962). Only by freeing themselves from
the useless toolbox of received, neo-classical theory, Kula argued, will economic
historians be able to construct their own microeconomics compatible with the empirical
evidence being interpreted.13 These general criticisms of the cliometric method have, of
course, been recognised for many years, with various economic historians appreciating
the limitations of formal method and the need for broader, more subtle approaches. To
give just one example, consider the following quote from William N. Parker:

[T]o a strict neoclassical economist, the human nature behind the activity is and
has always been essentially, drearily, the same at all times and places. We
[economic historians] should postulate instead a human nature, itself
semi-malleable, a putty clay, which can form and be formed with different values,
skills, tastes, and energies, according to the chance of its genetic composition and
the physical and social world in which it grows up. (Parker, 1996: 456)

26 Comments by practitioners in the twenty-five interviews included in Lyons, Cain, and

Williamsons book echo this theme. Rostow, for example, recognised that cliometricians
were too much in the grip of the neoclassical economists (Lyons, Cain, & Williamson:
88), while North called for economic historians to break out of the structures imposed
by neoclassical theory. (Lyons, Cain, & Williamson: 197).
27 This leads to point (3) of Boldizzonis manifeso concerning the need of economic
historians to initiate constructive dialogues with other disciplines. This is certainly a
useful point, and should help draw some towards appreciating the shifting, often subtle,
relationships (theory/history, social sciences/humanities) that have developed over
recent decades. For example, recent evidence of moves towards establishing positive
and constructive dialogues between the humanities and the social sciences can be found
in studies by Beugelsdijk and Maseland (2011), Jackson (2009), De Jong (2009), Hann
and Hart (2011), as well as edited collections by Ruccio (2008) and Gudeman (2009).
28 The move towards greater communication between disciplines is certainly to be
applauded, but there is still more to be done. Could more also be done, for example, to
integrate new ideas from the humanities into the study of economic history? One
possibility may be to consider those approaches that, in recent years, have reinvigorated
political history. In its new formthe new political historytraditional approaches,
based around studies of leadership and institutions, have been fused with investigations
into the culture of representative politics.14 With this in mind, would economic
historians (and even historians of economic thought?) be prepared to move beyond
established disciplinary boundaries and so further embrace the study of economic
cultures and the social generation of economic knowledge?15
29 Boldizzonis overall argument is interesting, and through clear, calm prose he has
performed a valuable task in producing a text (the most systematic in recent years) that
addresses long-standing methodological questions associated with the study and
practice of economic history. On this level, the book can be read with no loss of interest
or enthusiasm. In substance, however, the work offers relatively little that is radically
new either in spirit or ideas. Indeed, much of its central argument is rooted in the past,

9 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

with the authors focus of attack being that army of cliometricians whose approach to
the study of economic history reached its zenith around thirty years ago! In emphasising
the historical method and the relationship between the humanities and social sciences,
Boldizzoni draws on the philosophy underpinning the German historical tradition. The
shadows of Roscher and Schmoller hang over this work, although it is surprising that so
little direct reference to either writer, or their schools of historical economics, is actually
made in the book. This is in sharp contrast to Drukkers book, where comments on the
future rehabilitation of the body of ideas associated with the German Historical School
is prominently presented. (Drukker: 17).
30 The scope and methodology of economic history, its relationship with economics, or
even its development as an academic discipline, has been addressed in a range of works
over the years, including Hicks (1969), Tuma (1971), Koot (1987), Kadish (1989),
Cippola (1991), Rawkski (1996), Hodgson (2001), Wright (2001), Mokyr (2005), and
Zamagni (2012). The five texts discussed above are worthy additions to this list. All can
be read profitably as complementary studies, and deserve a wide readership amongst
scholars across the humanities or the social sciences. Drukkers book, in particular, is
easily accessible, with the clear aim from the outset to translate the approach and
results of the new economic history for readers with no economic background. The
interviews presented by Lyons, Cain and Williamson serve as valuable oral histories,
and are recommended to anyonefriend or foeseeking to understand both the
intellectual agendas of those pioneers of the cliometric endeavour and the sociology of
twentieth century economic history. Boldizzonis work is worth reading in conjunction
with the introductory material provided in Lyons, Cain and Williamson: one offers a
detailed commentary on the development and impact the cliometric revolution; the
other questions its central themes and seeks to offer a new methodological framework
to facilitate the renewal of economic history. Many (unsympathetic) readers, however,
will no doubt see Boldizzonis overall work as little more than a highly able re-packaging
of the established critique of a particular (American) version of economic history. The
combined bibliographies of these five bookseven allowing for the inevitable
repetitionsprovide a rich feast, and serve as an ideal starting point for researchers
seeking greater insights into these issues. Overall, these are books that, it is hoped, will
serve to stimulate and encourage. Their overall strength lies in the extent to which they
force the reader to reflect upon the different aspects of, and approaches to, the study
and practice of economic history. In this regard, they succeed in raising more questions
than they answerquestions about the need to better understand the sociology of
economic history, questions about the complex methodological relationship between
history and economics, questions about future research agendas, and so on.
31 A few final points that are worth noting. First, given the scope of these texts, it is a
little surprising that there was not more coverage of the relationship between economic
history and the history of economic thought. Some moves in this direction have
occurred in recent yearsfor example, the highly enjoyable The Clash of Economic
Ideas (White, 2012)and one would hope that more could be done to assist in further
re-establishing links between the two disciplines. Second, the dominant American
character of much of these worksdemonstrated particularly in Lyons, Cain, and
Williamsons collected interviewsdraws into sharp focus the need for wider
geographical investigations into the professionalisation and institutional development
of post-1945 economic history. While the development of economic history within
American academia is ably covered by Cole (1965), Coats (1980), de Rouvray (2004)
and Mitch (2011), discussion of the situation in Britain is noticeably spare, represented
only in Hartes collection of inaugural lectures (Harte, 1971), a short study by Coleman
(Coleman, 1987), and a book of reflections published to mark the seventy-fifth

10 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

anniversary of the Economic History Society (Hudson, 2001). A companion volume to

that of Lyons, Cain, and Williamson, focused on commentaries by European scholars,
would be most welcome (although this reviewer is not holding his breath that one will
be appearing anytime soon)
32 As a final point, it is difficult not to give some thought to the future direction of
economic history. A useful perspective on this can be found in a recent contribution by
Stephen Broadberry to a special article marking the sixtieth anniversary of the
Scandinavia Economic History Review (Jones, van Leeuwen and Broadberry, 2012).
Broadberrys comments are drawn from a survey conducted amongst (unnamed)
colleagues, all of who where asked to identify research topics/themes that they believe
will develop increasing attention amongst economic historians over the next decade.
These topics/themes were grouped as follows: financial crisis; the Great Divergence of
living standards between Asia and Europe; new institutional economic history;
anthropometric history and quantitative analysis of living standards; historical national
accounting covering various Asian economies including China, India, and Japan;
environmental history; and methodology. The anticipated trajectory that Broadberrys
sets out is powerful (no one could describe any of these topics as sedate!), and yet in
aggregate it fails to deviate in any significant degree from long-standing research trends
amongst economic historians i.e. themes of growth, development, stagnation and
decline, social transformation, inequality, welfare, and so on (all of these, we should
remember, formed the basis of large sections of Whaples and Parkers edited collection).
33 In the light of the five books discussed above, one is left considering whether, within
this anticipated research trajectory, the central features of economic history are
becoming somewhat lost. Economic history is a discipline whose core principles possess
a powerful human character. It is a subject whose research questions lie at the heart of
examining mankinds existence in a world of innovation and development.16 And it is
these core principles, as Patrick OBrien has pointed out, that makes economic history
too fundamental to be virtually ignored by historians and too complex to be left to
economists with their shortcuts into cross-country multiple-regression. (Lyons, Cain,
& Williamson: 443). Interesting thought the bulk of Broadberrys themes are, it is to be
hoped that, through opportunities for honest intellectual debate about methodological
issues, the engaged practitioner will gradually be led to critically consider what needs to
be done, and what can be done, within the study of economic history to re-evaluate
approaches, reconsider standards, and refocus ideas.

Bibliographie
Beugelsdijk, S. & Maseland, R. 2011. Culture in Economics: History, Methodological Reflections
and Contemporary Applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bordo, Michael D., Taylor, Alan M, and Williamson, Jeffery G. (eds.) 2005. Globalization in
Historical Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Broadberry, Stephen and ORourke, Kevin. (eds.) 2010a. The Cambridge Economic History of
Modern Europe: Volume 1, 17001870. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Broadberry, Stephen & ORourke, Kevin. eds. 2010b. The Cambridge Economic History of
Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870Present. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511794841
Brownlow, Graham A. 2010. Structure and Change: Douglass Norths economics, Journal of
Economic Methodology, 17(3): 301-316.
DOI : 10.1080/13501781003792662
Castelles, Manuel, Joa Caraq, and Gustavo Cordoso. 2012. Aftermath: The Cultures of the
Economic Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

Cipolla, Carlo M. 1991. Between History and Economics: An Introduction to Economic History.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Coats, Alfred William (Bob). 1980. The Historical Context of the New Economic History. Journal
of Economic History, 9(1): 185-207.
Cole, Arthur H. 1968. Economic History in the United States: Formative Years of a Discipline.
Journal of Economic History, 28(4): 556-589.
DOI : 10.1017/S002205070010097X
Coleman, Donald C. 1987. History and the Economic Past: An Account of the Rise and Decline of
Economic History in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Conrad, Alfred H. & Meyer, John R. 1958. The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South.
Journal of Political Economy, 66(2): 95-130.
DOI : 10.1086/258020
Crafts, N.F.R. 1987. Cliometrics, 19711986: A Survey. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2(3):
171-192.
Crowe, Charles. 1976. Time on the Cross: The Historical Monograph as a Pop Event. The History
Teacher, 9(4): 588-630.
DOI : 10.2307/492099
Daunton, Martin. 2011. The Future Direction of British History: Thinking about Economic
Cultures. History Workshop Journal, 72(1): 222-239.
DOI : 10.1093/hwj/dbr028
De Jong, Eelke. 2009. Culture and Economics: On Values, Economics and International
Business. London: Routledge.
De Rouvray, Cristel. 2004. Old Economic History in the United States: 1939-1954. Journal of the
History of Economic Thought, 26(4): 221-239.
Engerman, Stanley L. 1980. Counterfactuals and the New Economic History. Inquiry: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 23(2): 157-172.
Evans, Richard J. 2002. Prologue: What is History?Now. In D. Cannadine (ed.), What is History
Now? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-18.
DOI : 10.1057/9780230204522
Fabricant, Solomon. 1984. Towards a Firmer Basis of Economic Policy: The Founding of the
National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, Mass: NBER.
Fielding, Stephen. 2007. Looking for the New Political History. Journal of Contemporary
History, 42(3): 515-524.
Fogel, Robert. 2006. The Slavery Debates, 19521990: A Retrospective. Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
Louisiana State University Press.
Fogel, Robert and Stanley Engerman. 1974. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American
Negro Slavery. London: Wildwood House.
Goldin, Claudia. 1995. Cliometrics and the Nobel. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2): 191-
208.
DOI : 10.1257/jep.9.2.191
Gudeman, Stephen (ed.). 2009. Economic Persuasions. New York: Berghahn Books.
Hann, Chris, and Keith Hart. 2011. Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harte, Negley. 1971. The Study of Economic History: Collected Inaugural Lectures, 18931970.
London: Cass.
Hicks, John. 1969. A Theory of Economic History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2001. How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical
Specificity in Social Science. London: Routledge.
Hudson, Pat (ed.). 2001. Living Economic and Social History Historians Explain their Interest
in, and the Nature of, their Subject: Essays to Mark the 75th Anniversary of the Economic
History Society, Glasgow: Economic History Society.
Jackson, William. 2009. Economics, Culture and Social Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DOI : 10.4337/9781849802116
Jones, Geoffrey, Marco H. D. van Leeuwen, and Stephen Broadberry. 2012. The Future of
Economics, Business and Social History. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 60(3):

12 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

225-253.
Kadish, Alon. 1989. Historians, Economists, and Economic History. London: Routledge.
Kapuria-Foreman, Vibha, and Mark Perlman. 1995. An Economic Historians Economist:
Remembering Simon Kuznets. Economic Journal, 105: 1524-1547.
Koot, Gerard M. 1987. English Historical Economics, 1870 1926: The Rise of Economic History
and Neomercantilism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kula, Witold. 1962. An Economic Theory of the Feudal System: Towards a Model of the Polish
Economy, 15001800. London: New Left Books.
Kula, Witold. 2001. The Problems and Methods of Economic History (translated by Richard
Szreter). Alderston: Ashgate.
Kuznets, Simon. 1966. Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. 1998. Economic History and the Cliometric Revolution. In George S.Wood
and Anthony Molho (eds.), Imagined Histories: American Historians Interpret the Past.
Princeton: Princeton University Press: 59-84.
Libecap, Gary D. 1992. Douglass C. North. In Warren J. Samuels, (ed.), New Horizons in
Economic Thought: Appraisals of Leading Economics. Aldershort: Elgar: 237-248.
Lundberg, Erik. 1971. Simon Kuznets Contribution to Economics. Swedish Journal of Economics,
73(4): 444-459.
DOI : 10.2307/3439225
Mathias, Peter. 2010. On Economic History: The Progress of a Discipline Living with its
Neighbours. In Geldina Harlaftis, Nikon Karapidakis, Kostas Sbonias, and Vaios Vaiopoulos
(eds), The New Ways of History: Developments in Historiography. London: I.B. Tauris: 125-142.
McCloskey, Donald N. 1978. The Achievements of the Cliometric School. Journal of Economic
History, 38(1): 13-28.
DOI : 10.1017/S0022050700088148
McCoskey, Donald N. 1987. Econometric History. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
Mitch, David. 2011. Economic History in Departments of Economics: The Case of the University
of Chicago, 1892 to the Present. Social Science History, 35(2): 237-271.
DOI : 10.1215/01455532-2010-023
Mokyr, Joel. 2005. Is there a theory of economic history? In Kurt Dopfer, (ed.), The Evolutionary
Foundations of Economics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, Sue, Keith Jenkins, and Alun Munslow (eds.). 2007. Manifestos for History. London:
Routledge.
North, Douglass C. 1976. The Place of Economic History in the Discipline of Economics.
Economic Inquiry, 14: 461-465.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1976.tb00436.x
North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
DOI : 10.1515/9781400829484
Parker, Randell E. 2002. Reflections on the Great Depression. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DOI : 10.4337/9781843765509
Parker, Randell E., and Robert M. Whaples (eds). 2013. Routledge Handbook of Major Events in
Economic History. London: Routledge.
Parker, William N. 1996. Economic History: The Teacher and the Subject. Journal of Economic
History, 56: 455-458.
DOI : 10.1017/S002205070001651X
Rawski, Thomas G. (ed.). 1996. Economics and the Historian. Berkeley: University of California.
Ruccio, David (ed.). 2008. Economic Representations: Academic and Everyday. London:
Routledge.
Samuelson, Paul. A and William A. Barnett (eds.). 2007. Inside the Economists Mind:
Conversations with Eminent Economists. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Stapleford, Thomas. A. 2009. The Cost of Living in America: A Political History of Economic
Statistics, 18002000. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Swedberg, Richard. 1990. Economics and Sociology: Redefining their Boundaries

13 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

Conversations with Economists and Sociologists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tribe, Keith. 1997. Economic Careers: Economics and Economists in Britain, 19301970.
London: Routledge.
Trebilcock, Clive. 2002. Surfing the Wave: The Long Cycle in the Industrial Centuries. In Peter
Martland (ed.), The Future of the Past: Big Questions in History. London: Pimlico: 66-88.
Tucker, Aviezer (ed.). 2011. A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
DOI : 10.1002/9781444304916
Tuma, Elis H. 1971. Economic History and the Social Sciences: Problems of Methodology.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Whaples, Robert. 1991. A Quantitative History of the Journal of Economic History and the
Cliometric Revolution. Journal of Economic History, 51(2): 289-301.
White, Laurence H. 2012. The Clash of Economic Ideas: The Great Policy Debates and
Experiments of the Last Hundred Years. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, Gavin. 2001. Economic History as a Cure for Economics. In Joan W. Scott and Debra
Keates (eds.), Schools of Thought: Twenty-Five Years of Interpretive Social Science. Princeton:
Princeton University Press: 41-51.
Wrigley, Anthony E. 2010. Energy and the Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511779619
Zamagni, Vera. 2012. Economic History and the Political Economy Approach. In Fernando
Guirao, Frances M.B Lynch, and Sigfrido M. Remres Prez (eds.). Alan S. Milward and a
Century of Economic Change. London: Routledge: 189-205.

Notes
1 Discussion of the literature on the economics of, and historiography surrounding, American
slavery can be found in Fogel (2006). For a detailed discussion of the reception of Fogel and
Engermans 1974 book, see Crowe (1976).
2 See Whaples (1990) for a quantitative assessment of the cliometric revolution in the contents of
the Journal of Economic History between 1941 and 1990.
3 Useful, short overviews of the history, methods, findings and achievements of the cliometric
school can be found in Crafts (1987), Goldin (1995), Lamoreaux (1998), McCloskey (1978, 1987).
4 See, of for example, Swedberg (1990), Tribe (1997), Parker (2002) and Samuelson and Barett
(2007).
5 Private comments by the late John Lyons to this reviewer, in Manchester in the autumn of 2011,
provided some insights into the difficulties that surrounded the completion of at least one of the
interviews in this collection.
6 A full discussion of the issues leading to the separation of historical knowledge and economic
theory in the twentieth century is beyond the scope of this review. The interested reader is
directed to consult Hodgson (2001) for details.
7 My thanks to Professor Roger Middleton, University of Bristol, for drawing my attention to this
book.
8 One fascinating example of this shifting framework can be found in Norths recent study of the
use of evolutionary psychology and cognitive science in explaining institutional structures and the
dynamics of economic change (North, 2005).
9 For a wider discussion of Norths contributions, see Libecap (1992) and Brownlow (2010).
10 Interesting examples of these approaches may be found in and Bordo, Taylor, and Williamson
(2005) and Broadberry and ORourke (2010a, 2010b).
11 A vigorous defence of the counterfactual approach can be found in Engerman (1980).
12 For an example of this, see North (1976).
13 Anyone seeking further instruction on Kulas arguments are advised to consult the translation
of his 1963 book, The Problems and Methods of Economic History (Kula, 2001)
14 For discussion of the new political history, see Fielding (2007)

14 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM
In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history https://oeconomia.revues.org/483

15 On this latter point, see Daunton, (2011) and Castelles, Caraq, and Cordoso (2012)
16 Let us briefly note one example: the ability of pre-industrial (organic) societies to circumvent
physical and biological processes (i.e. energy budgets and the Malthusian trap) and so allow an
increasing population to co-exist with long-term increasing is living standards. For a detailed
discussion of this fascinating account of the transformation from organic to advanced mineral
based economies, see Wrigley (2010).

Pour citer cet article

Rfrence papier
Chris Godden, In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history ,
conomia, 3-4 | 2013, 645-664.

Rfrence lectronique
Chris Godden, In praise of Clio: Recent reflections on the study of economic history ,
conomia [En ligne], 3-4 | 2013, mis en ligne le 26 mars 2014, consult le 21 mars 2017. URL :
http://oeconomia.revues.org/483

Auteur
Chris Godden
University of Manchester. Christopher.Godden@manchester.ac.uk

Droits dauteur

Les contenus dconomia sont mis disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative
Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. En savoir plus

15 of 15 3/22/2017 1:03 AM